- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The God Theory: Universes, Zero-Point Fields, and What’s Behind It Allby Bernard Haisch 2006 Haisch is an astrophysicist and he’s fun to read. You get a scientist’s angle on Kabbalah’s cosmogony and more, such as his theory that mass is an illusion resulting from zero-point field’s effect of inertia on matter. And he’s not just a nut job – he’s published at least two papers on it, one using Newtonian physics and the other using Einstein’s relativity equations/whatever (I’m not a physicist!) Very interesting. Here’s a couple of quotes:
p. 25
“… in its most rigid form, reductionism becomes essentially a matter of faith and simply another kind of orthodoxy that goes by the name of scientism.
The word ‘science’ is used today in two very different ways — in the service of epistemology, which is a way of investigating reality, and in the service of ontology, which is a conceptualization of reality itself. It is in this second sense that dogmatic science is invoked today and should more properly be regarded as the religion of scientism. While scientific orthodoxy boasts no churches, it is nonetheless a faith — a faith whose ritual is skepticism. …I contend, … that, although the material investigations of science are absolutely correct, they only penetrate the lowest level of reality — that of the physical and the material.”
p. 143
“Exoteric and Esoteric Knowledge
Arthur Eddington wrote:
“Some would put the question in the form “Is the unseen world revealed by the mystical outlook a reality?” Reality is one of those indeterminate words which might lead to infinite philosophical discussions and irrelevancies. There is less danger of misunderstanding if we put the question in the form “Are we, in pursuing the mystical outlook, facing the hard facts of experience?”
Surely we are. I think that those who would wish to take cognisance of nothing but the measurements of the scientific world made by our sense-organs are shirking one of the most immediate facts of experience, namely that consciousness is not wholly, nor even primarily a device for receiving sense-impressions.”
I recommend it.
HiJolly
There’s a third meaning to “science” as well, the concept of the scientific community as a unified entity. I told a New Ager off recently for saying “science believes such and such”. I said, there’s no such thing as “science” because it’s an abstract concept, and real science involves advancing knowledge, not leaving it in a rut. He also said, “don’t you believe that there are some things that can’t be explained.” I reckon that when most people say that they mean “there are some things, which I hope are never explained”. I pointed out that science’s proper job was to look into things, and that if it hadn’t started from that point, many of the technologies he had in his home – electricity, television, computer, plumbing, cooking etc etc wouldn’t exist.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.